S. S. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) BY an order dated 22. 6. 1985 passed by District Magistrate, Jabalpur under section 3 (2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Amar Kori, the detenu was detained. The petitioner is the father of that detenu and has challenged the detention. He, by this petition, seeks issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. ( 2 ) IN the petition, the allegation is that the detenu was not supplied with the order of detention or the grounds on which the said order was passed. However, in the return, it has been stated by the respondents that the order of detention along with the grounds of detention were sent for service to the detenu in the Jail, but they were refused by him. An endorsement in that behalf was made on the original order of detention. In the return, it has also been mentioned that the District Magistrate has recorded his satisfaction that even though the detenu is in Jail, he may come out of Jail and may repeat his activities. This finds place even in the later part of the grounds of detention. It has also been stated in the petition that the District Magistrate by order dated 26. 6. 1985 supplied the documents along with the grounds of detention to the counsel for the petitioner and his signatures are present on the recordt Annexure-R-V dated 11. 11. 1985 bears an endorsement about the receipt of the documents by the counsel. Annexure-R-II supports the plea of the respondents that the detenu had refused to accept the documents on 26. 6. 1985. ( 3 ) THE detenu was produced before the Advisory Board on 28. 1985, which opined that there was sufficient cause for the detention of Shri. Amar Kori, alias, Amarnath Kori, son of Devidayal. Thereafter, the State Government confirmed the order of detention for a period of one year. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner urged that the incident involved do not really relate to public order and are, therefore, irrelevant. Another contention put- Forth was that there is nothing to indicate that the statement of Ashok Wadhwa, from where the alleged telephone call is said to have been made, had been recorded. According to him, copy of any such statement had not been supplied. Another contention put- Forth was that there is nothing to indicate that the statement of Ashok Wadhwa, from where the alleged telephone call is said to have been made, had been recorded. According to him, copy of any such statement had not been supplied. Yet, another contention put forth was that the alleged threat to the Police Officer concerned would, at best, be an offence against an individual and would not amount to disturbance of public order. Lastly, the contention was that before the Advisory Board, the respondents were represented by the City Magistrate, Jabalpur, but the detenu was deprived of being so represented by a counselor a legal adviser. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to go into all these contentions and the petition deserves to be allowed only on the aforesaid last contention, as was put- Forth on behalf of the petitioner. ( 6 ) IN the petition, a specific allegation had been made that before the Advisory Board, City Magistrate, Jabalpur represented the State Government and the detenu had no chance to plead his case properly. In the return, it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that the detenu did not ask for any opportunity before the Advisory Board to be represented through counsel and the order cannot be said to be vitiated merely because of the fact that the City Magistrate appeared before the Advisory Board. Thus, the fact that the City Magistrate, Jabalpur appeared before the Advisory Board is an admitted one. ( 7 ) IN support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of their Lordships in AK. Roy v. Union of India1. Their Lordships in this decision have laid down that permitting the detaining authority or the Government to appear before the Advisory Board with the aid of a legal practitioner or a legal adviser would be in breach of Article-14, if a similar facility is denied to the detenu. It has further been laid down that if the detaining authority or the Government takes aid of the legal practitioner or a legal adviser before the Advisory Board, the detenu must be allowed the facility of appearing before the Advisory Board through a legal practitioner. It has further been laid down that if the detaining authority or the Government takes aid of the legal practitioner or a legal adviser before the Advisory Board, the detenu must be allowed the facility of appearing before the Advisory Board through a legal practitioner. ( 8 ) ACCORDING to the learned Additional Advocate General, the City Magistrate had not argued the case and had merely appeared before the Advisory Board along with the record in compliance to the notice of the date of the meeting, which had been issued by the Advisory Board. A part of this argument that has been put- Forth by the learned Additional Advocate General stands answered by the discussion in the case of A. K. Roy (Supra) (paragraphs 94 and 95 ). As already stated, the fact that the City Magistrate had appeared before the Advisory Board is not disputed. In the return, it was not mentioned that the City Magistrate had not made any submissions before the Advisory Board. We have perused the records which, on being asked, were placed before us by the learned Additional Advocate General and we are satisfied that the afore-said argument does not deserve to be accepted. ( 9 ) THE reason behind the provision contained in Article 22 (3) (b) of the Constitution clearly is that a legal practitioner should not be permitted to appear before the Advisory Board for any party. From what has been stated above, it is amply clear that the respondents were represented before the Advisory facility was not extended to the detenu. In the circumstances, Article-14 of the Constitution stands clearly violated. The detenu has thus been deprived of putting his case in a proper manner before the Advisory Board. On this ground alone, the detention of the detenu cannot be upheld. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22. 6. 1985 passed by the District Magistrate, Jabalpur is quashed. The detenu be set at liberty forthwith, unless required to be detained in connection with any other offence or offences. .